Hi, I need help from the experts here. I was offered a job as Assistant General Manager with a reputed company in the month of April. My joining was supposed to be on the 11th of June. I have accepted that offer. However, on the 8th of June (Friday, Saturday, and Sunday being off), I received an email from the Chief Manager HR of the company that my joining has been delayed. The interesting fact is that on the 8th itself around 3 PM, a junior HR executive emailed me and asked me to be there on the 11th for joining by 10 AM. After speaking with them face to face, they are citing reasons that the position does not exist now and they need some time to come back to me. What do I need to do, as I have left the old organization and they have recruited new manpower for my position.
Regards
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
1Regards
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The contract is complete when they have offered, and you have accepted the offer. Breach of contract exists as per the details given. Probably, you need to visit the company, meet higher-ups, and find out the exact position. You can explain to them that the old job has been given based on this offer and acceptance. Legal action may be considered if found necessary by a local lawyer after going through all paperwork, emails on the subject.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Friend,
A job offer is the expression of interest by the company to a candidate to communicate its intention to enter into the contract of employment. It is not the contract itself. The offer becomes a contract of employment when the candidate joins the company and agrees to the terms and conditions of employment by signing the duplicate copy of the said letter.
Similarly, many candidates do not join the company even after accepting the offer of employment; this is not a breach of contract. The offer can be withdrawn at any time before joining. If the withdrawal is so late that it causes a loss to the candidate, then the company can be sued in the court of law.
Warm Regards,
Bharat Gera
HR Consultant
9322404765
From India, Thane
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
A job offer is the expression of interest by the company to a candidate to communicate its intention to enter into the contract of employment. It is not the contract itself. The offer becomes a contract of employment when the candidate joins the company and agrees to the terms and conditions of employment by signing the duplicate copy of the said letter.
Similarly, many candidates do not join the company even after accepting the offer of employment; this is not a breach of contract. The offer can be withdrawn at any time before joining. If the withdrawal is so late that it causes a loss to the candidate, then the company can be sued in the court of law.
Warm Regards,
Bharat Gera
HR Consultant
9322404765
From India, Thane
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear GeraJi,
Your point is valid to the extent of procedure.
But here job offer has been accepted and date of joining given.
Now withdrawal of offer is breach of contract.
To my mind Company made an offer to X and X has sent his acceptance as per prescribed date.
That complete chain of action to become accepted contract.
This is how i understand the issue in question.
Section 5 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872-
"A proposal may be revoked at any time before the communication of its acceptance is complete as against the proposer, but not afterwards. —A proposal may be revoked at any time before the communication of its acceptance is complete as against the proposer, but not afterwards."
The job offer once it is accepted becomes a basic legal contract between you and your new employer and when your employer withdraws that offer it falls under ‘Breach of Contract’. In Normal circumstance, the contract once made cannot be unilaterally revoked. Only both parties to contract can discharge each other from obligation by novation /accord and satisfaction.
"Acceptance and intimation of acceptance of offer are therefore both necessary to result in a binding contract.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Your point is valid to the extent of procedure.
But here job offer has been accepted and date of joining given.
Now withdrawal of offer is breach of contract.
To my mind Company made an offer to X and X has sent his acceptance as per prescribed date.
That complete chain of action to become accepted contract.
This is how i understand the issue in question.
Section 5 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872-
"A proposal may be revoked at any time before the communication of its acceptance is complete as against the proposer, but not afterwards. —A proposal may be revoked at any time before the communication of its acceptance is complete as against the proposer, but not afterwards."
The job offer once it is accepted becomes a basic legal contract between you and your new employer and when your employer withdraws that offer it falls under ‘Breach of Contract’. In Normal circumstance, the contract once made cannot be unilaterally revoked. Only both parties to contract can discharge each other from obligation by novation /accord and satisfaction.
"Acceptance and intimation of acceptance of offer are therefore both necessary to result in a binding contract.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Friend,
The fact is that Xco offered a job to A, which has been accepted by A as per the conditions of the offer. Joining the job on the fixed date is one of the conditions, which in itself forms a binding contract between Xco and A. The withdrawal or cancellation of the offer would constitute a breach of the contract, in the absence of a clause granting Xco the liberty to cancel the offer.
It is widely acknowledged that the position of Assistant General Manager is typically not offered to a fresher. One must realize that in order to join a new job, the candidate would have had to leave the old job with a notice period. The current situation of the candidate is jobless, as they have already resigned from their old job to join the new one.
In my opinion, the candidate should consider suing the company for breach of contract and trust after verifying his documents with a lawyer's assistance. Consulting a lawyer would be necessary to determine the next course of action.
Kind regards,
[Your Name]
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The fact is that Xco offered a job to A, which has been accepted by A as per the conditions of the offer. Joining the job on the fixed date is one of the conditions, which in itself forms a binding contract between Xco and A. The withdrawal or cancellation of the offer would constitute a breach of the contract, in the absence of a clause granting Xco the liberty to cancel the offer.
It is widely acknowledged that the position of Assistant General Manager is typically not offered to a fresher. One must realize that in order to join a new job, the candidate would have had to leave the old job with a notice period. The current situation of the candidate is jobless, as they have already resigned from their old job to join the new one.
In my opinion, the candidate should consider suing the company for breach of contract and trust after verifying his documents with a lawyer's assistance. Consulting a lawyer would be necessary to determine the next course of action.
Kind regards,
[Your Name]
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Friends,
I agree with you to some extent. I have mentioned in the post that in case of late withdrawal of an offer, the candidate sustains losses; hence, they can sue the company in the court of law. Withdrawal at the last moment without sound and logical reasons is not acceptable.
Though not relevant to this matter, the example is that the "Agreement to Sell" and "Sales Agreement" are two different things. Many offers mention the fact that the offer can be withdrawn at any time.
Warm Regards,
Bharat Gera
HR Consultant
9322404765
From India, Thane
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I agree with you to some extent. I have mentioned in the post that in case of late withdrawal of an offer, the candidate sustains losses; hence, they can sue the company in the court of law. Withdrawal at the last moment without sound and logical reasons is not acceptable.
Though not relevant to this matter, the example is that the "Agreement to Sell" and "Sales Agreement" are two different things. Many offers mention the fact that the offer can be withdrawn at any time.
Warm Regards,
Bharat Gera
HR Consultant
9322404765
From India, Thane
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Many offers mention the fact that the offer can be withdrawn at any time. Such offers need to be rejected out of hand.
People have to leave jobs to get another job, and whims and fancies of employers are not acceptable.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
People have to leave jobs to get another job, and whims and fancies of employers are not acceptable.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I think this can be decided by the people while taking up the offer. Most people dont read the offer document before signing it. Warm Regards & Thanks Bharat Gera HR Consultant 9322404765
From India, Thane
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Thane
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I endorse the views of Nathrao Sir that by accepting the offer of appointment without any condition, a contract has come into vogue, and the recruitee has a right to sue the employer for breach of contract. However, this type of litigation has not been widely reported. A claim could lie for damages and mesne profit.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear HR friends,
Have you come across any company's job offer that says - 'the company reserves the right to withdraw the offer before the candidate joins the company'? Fortunately, I have not yet come across such a company. I find it hard to believe that any right-thinking HR manager would insert such a clause in the offer. I also find it hard to believe that any right-thinking professional would accept such an offer.
Once the job offer is made and the candidate's acceptance is communicated, the contract is complete. It is not correct to say that the employer has the right to withdraw the offer anytime until the candidate joins, even when he/she has communicated acceptance of the offer. It would be a mockery of justice, equity, and good conscience if the employers were to have a legal right to do such a thing.
Of course, it is true that sometimes candidates accept job offers but do not show up to join. Our legal system being what it is, employers do not sue such candidates for damages. However, I think it could serve as some kind of deterrent to mention in the job offer that after accepting the offer if the candidate fails to join, he/she will be liable to pay the employer damages of Rs....
Some candidates might still breach the contract, but it is likely to act as a deterrent in respect of most of the candidates.
This thought has come to me as I was typing this post. Would like to get views of fellow professionals.
Regards,
Ravindra Pandit
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Have you come across any company's job offer that says - 'the company reserves the right to withdraw the offer before the candidate joins the company'? Fortunately, I have not yet come across such a company. I find it hard to believe that any right-thinking HR manager would insert such a clause in the offer. I also find it hard to believe that any right-thinking professional would accept such an offer.
Once the job offer is made and the candidate's acceptance is communicated, the contract is complete. It is not correct to say that the employer has the right to withdraw the offer anytime until the candidate joins, even when he/she has communicated acceptance of the offer. It would be a mockery of justice, equity, and good conscience if the employers were to have a legal right to do such a thing.
Of course, it is true that sometimes candidates accept job offers but do not show up to join. Our legal system being what it is, employers do not sue such candidates for damages. However, I think it could serve as some kind of deterrent to mention in the job offer that after accepting the offer if the candidate fails to join, he/she will be liable to pay the employer damages of Rs....
Some candidates might still breach the contract, but it is likely to act as a deterrent in respect of most of the candidates.
This thought has come to me as I was typing this post. Would like to get views of fellow professionals.
Regards,
Ravindra Pandit
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
"I think it could serve as some kind of deterrent to mention in the job offer that after accepting the offer, if the candidate fails to join, he/she will be liable to pay the employer damages of Rs...."
The amount quoted should be reasonable and backed by how the figure is worked out - time spent on recruitment, ads, interviews, etc. These figures should be kept as a backup if the candidate challenges the damages levied by the employer and produced as evidence of reasonable costs.
No wonder companies keep two or three candidates as a backup.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The amount quoted should be reasonable and backed by how the figure is worked out - time spent on recruitment, ads, interviews, etc. These figures should be kept as a backup if the candidate challenges the damages levied by the employer and produced as evidence of reasonable costs.
No wonder companies keep two or three candidates as a backup.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
If an employer makes an offer to a prospective candidate deeming him fit for the position, and the candidate provides his acceptance with the offer, this leads to the candidate resigning from his present capacity. Revoking the offer, without the mutual consent of the candidate and employer from either side, is a breach of contract and either party can sue each other for the damages they might incur because of the same.
Employers rarely sue candidates for not fulfilling their part of the deal in case they back out at the last moment because of the sheer reason of increasing the workload on their legal team, but in certain cases, they do. It is important that the candidate should take this up legally in case the higher authorities fail to provide a solution.
The employer here, however, can also look at the option of paying the salary in lieu of not letting the candidate serve the notice period, had the candidate joined the services and was asked to leave on the very first day of his employment.
From India, Kochi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Employers rarely sue candidates for not fulfilling their part of the deal in case they back out at the last moment because of the sheer reason of increasing the workload on their legal team, but in certain cases, they do. It is important that the candidate should take this up legally in case the higher authorities fail to provide a solution.
The employer here, however, can also look at the option of paying the salary in lieu of not letting the candidate serve the notice period, had the candidate joined the services and was asked to leave on the very first day of his employment.
From India, Kochi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
If this becomes practice for HR industry the paper of offer will loose its sanctity.
From India
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thanks to all the members for helping. Now the situation has an update. I had sent them a legal notice and asked for compensation. The Chief HR of that company called back and said that the project is back on track, and they want to have me on board. Previously, she had emailed me that due to an adverse reference check, they were withdrawing their offer. When I asked her about my adverse reference check, she said that since she was not in a position to comment on the exact time the project would restart, she had no other option.
What I assume is that they will bring me on board and after a few days, they will terminate me citing non-performance as the reason. In that case, I will not have any options left. Should I simply ask for compensation as their actions have resulted in my job loss, and I am not yet employed again? Should I ask for a new offer letter with no termination bond of a minimum of 6 months? Please guide...
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
What I assume is that they will bring me on board and after a few days, they will terminate me citing non-performance as the reason. In that case, I will not have any options left. Should I simply ask for compensation as their actions have resulted in my job loss, and I am not yet employed again? Should I ask for a new offer letter with no termination bond of a minimum of 6 months? Please guide...
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
It is neither ethical nor can the company do it. Based on the offer, the prospect would have resigned or planned to join the organization, resulting in an unforeseen loss for him. This could lead to legal action if he desires to pursue it through court proceedings.
Regards,
Piyush
From India, Varanasi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Regards,
Piyush
From India, Varanasi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
You will have to take a call. They have again offered a position to you and you need to seek clarifications on the longevity of the position. Verbal discussions will help you to judge whether it is a smokescreen to avoid legal action. Ask them the nature of the project and whether it suits your qualifications and field of expertise. You would be in a position to judge by asking a few strategic questions. Take care and decide.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a valid contract has three components, i.e., (1) offer, (2) acceptance, and (3) consideration. I think the third part (consideration) is missing in this case. So if the offer is withdrawn by the employer, the party who accepted the offer (employee) might suffer losses and may feel like knocking the door of the court.
Now, take the other side also. After entering into this contract - which is devoid of consideration, i.e., the 3rd element - if the employee does not join, will the employer not suffer losses? Definitely, he will. Will he also not feel like knocking the door of the court?
Therefore, to my mind, the real contract would be clinched when the employee joins the employer. Further terms and conditions of service are signed between the parties.
From India, Chandigarh
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Now, take the other side also. After entering into this contract - which is devoid of consideration, i.e., the 3rd element - if the employee does not join, will the employer not suffer losses? Definitely, he will. Will he also not feel like knocking the door of the court?
Therefore, to my mind, the real contract would be clinched when the employee joins the employer. Further terms and conditions of service are signed between the parties.
From India, Chandigarh
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mr. Jacob Pratap,
You have raised a very interesting point. In continuation of this thread, a question comes to my mind. Suppose 'A' makes an offer to buy property from 'B' for a consideration of Rs. 50 Lakhs. 'B' accepts the offer. The parties agree to carry out the transaction/registration one month later. Do we have all 3 essential elements of a valid contract here? The money transaction has not actually taken place, but the offer and its acceptance are there, as well as a clear understanding of consideration. Now, suppose 'A' withdraws the offer after 29 days. In the meanwhile, 'B' has turned down several lucrative offers from other parties. The withdrawal of the offer by 'A' is going to cause financial loss to 'B'. Will 'B' be entitled to sue 'A' in this case?
Is it a condition precedent that the 'consideration' should actually be passed on before the contract is deemed valid? (Or is the mention of consideration made with the intent to distinguish commercial deals from promises of charity? Obviously, charity would not come under the purview of the Contracts Act since there is no consideration, and so a promise to make charity would not be contractually enforceable.) If a contract were to be considered valid only after the consideration amount is paid, most contracts would become defunct because the consideration is generally parted with in stages as the execution of the contractual terms progresses. Does the Contracts Act specify how much (percentage) of the consideration should change hands before the contract is considered valid and enforceable? In the absence of such a provision, it should logically be sufficient if the consideration amount (reasonable) is agreed upon by the parties, even if no amount has actually been paid. (So long as the offer and acceptance fall into the 'commercial' transaction category, I would like to believe that a clear mention of the consideration amount should be sufficient to give it the shape of a valid contract. In the absence of a clause giving a right to either or both parties to revoke the contract midway, I believe it should be considered an irrevocable contract). I would like to be corrected if this opinion is not in line with what the law says or intends.
Similarly, in the case of a job appointment, there are three elements: offer, acceptance, and mention of salary (consideration). Based on this confirmed (duly offered and accepted) appointment letter, the prospective employee leaves his current job. Subsequently, if the offer is withdrawn, the employee would have already left his existing job and therefore would be subjected to a tangible loss until he finds an alternative, comparable occupation. It would be a mockery of justice if the law becomes helpless in such circumstances. Specific relief must be given to the affected party.
Of course, very rarely would an employer breach a contract, while prospective employees seem to do this more often and blatantly. In either of such cases, justice should be done by making the defaulter pay liquidated damages. Unfortunately, our judicial system is so sluggish that people don't even think of knocking on the doors of court. If the 'Durbar' system of dispensing quick justice were still in place, perhaps the situation would have been different!
Regards,
Ravindra Pandit
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
You have raised a very interesting point. In continuation of this thread, a question comes to my mind. Suppose 'A' makes an offer to buy property from 'B' for a consideration of Rs. 50 Lakhs. 'B' accepts the offer. The parties agree to carry out the transaction/registration one month later. Do we have all 3 essential elements of a valid contract here? The money transaction has not actually taken place, but the offer and its acceptance are there, as well as a clear understanding of consideration. Now, suppose 'A' withdraws the offer after 29 days. In the meanwhile, 'B' has turned down several lucrative offers from other parties. The withdrawal of the offer by 'A' is going to cause financial loss to 'B'. Will 'B' be entitled to sue 'A' in this case?
Is it a condition precedent that the 'consideration' should actually be passed on before the contract is deemed valid? (Or is the mention of consideration made with the intent to distinguish commercial deals from promises of charity? Obviously, charity would not come under the purview of the Contracts Act since there is no consideration, and so a promise to make charity would not be contractually enforceable.) If a contract were to be considered valid only after the consideration amount is paid, most contracts would become defunct because the consideration is generally parted with in stages as the execution of the contractual terms progresses. Does the Contracts Act specify how much (percentage) of the consideration should change hands before the contract is considered valid and enforceable? In the absence of such a provision, it should logically be sufficient if the consideration amount (reasonable) is agreed upon by the parties, even if no amount has actually been paid. (So long as the offer and acceptance fall into the 'commercial' transaction category, I would like to believe that a clear mention of the consideration amount should be sufficient to give it the shape of a valid contract. In the absence of a clause giving a right to either or both parties to revoke the contract midway, I believe it should be considered an irrevocable contract). I would like to be corrected if this opinion is not in line with what the law says or intends.
Similarly, in the case of a job appointment, there are three elements: offer, acceptance, and mention of salary (consideration). Based on this confirmed (duly offered and accepted) appointment letter, the prospective employee leaves his current job. Subsequently, if the offer is withdrawn, the employee would have already left his existing job and therefore would be subjected to a tangible loss until he finds an alternative, comparable occupation. It would be a mockery of justice if the law becomes helpless in such circumstances. Specific relief must be given to the affected party.
Of course, very rarely would an employer breach a contract, while prospective employees seem to do this more often and blatantly. In either of such cases, justice should be done by making the defaulter pay liquidated damages. Unfortunately, our judicial system is so sluggish that people don't even think of knocking on the doors of court. If the 'Durbar' system of dispensing quick justice were still in place, perhaps the situation would have been different!
Regards,
Ravindra Pandit
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I agreed with Mr. Pratap's point that consideration is important in the contract. Now, an employee can go and knock on the court. Before doing so, we need to ensure the following points:
1. If you go to court, then another employer may choose not to hire you.
2. Our future may be spoiled.
In my view, when you join a company, you have to verify the management culture. Every management has its own culture, and we need to understand the character of the management.
I strongly emphasize my point that even if you join, you may not survive there. It's better to leave it and expose their company name and their deception to the outside world.
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
1. If you go to court, then another employer may choose not to hire you.
2. Our future may be spoiled.
In my view, when you join a company, you have to verify the management culture. Every management has its own culture, and we need to understand the character of the management.
I strongly emphasize my point that even if you join, you may not survive there. It's better to leave it and expose their company name and their deception to the outside world.
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mr. Pandit,
Although I am not a practicing lawyer, yet I feel that the legal position would be somewhat like this:-
If you ever witnessed a sale-purchase transaction of a property, like the example you have quoted, you may be knowing that simultaneously the parties also enter into an ‘Agreement to Sell’ and the purchaser also makes part payment (consideration) of the agreed amount to the seller. In such agreements the total consideration price (total cost) is written which the purchaser would pay to the seller. And usually it is also agreed between the parties that the seller will sell to the purchaser on the agreed amount but in case he fails to do so, he will return double the amount (consideration) which has been advanced to him, and also, if the purchaser fails to pay the balance amount within the stipulated time, his partial payment made would be forfeited by the seller.
Now under this sale-purchase agreement the following situations may emerge:-
(1) if the seller revokes agreement or fails to appear before Register for transfer of property when the seller marks his presence there along with the balance amount, the seller would be liable to pay double the amount he has already received from the purchaser. And if the seller fails to pay back, the purchaser will file a suit for recovery as per terms of agreement. He will claim this amount under the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
(2) If the seller marks his presence before the Registrar for transfer of property but the purchaser does not appear, or the purchaser revokes agreement, the seller will keep the money advanced to him by the purchaser and the purchaser cannot claim it as per terms of agreement.
(3) If the seller, after receiving the full amount of money (consideration), does not appear before Register for transfer of property, the Purchaser can file a suit for specific performance under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and force him to transfer the property to him.
Hence, in these kind of agreements, the part-payment or full payment is the ‘consideration’. As per law, consideration could even be paltry sums say one penny or one rupee. And also, such kind of agreements can be legally forced to be performed specifically by the erring party through the court of law in India i.e. under the provisions of Specific Relief Act, 1963.
But this is not the situation in the cases of contract of service i.e. contracts between employer and employee. These kind of agreements cannot got enforced through courts in view of section 14(1)(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 according to which a contract, the performance of which involves continuous duty which the court cannot supervise, cannot be enforced.
However, if the employer still forces an employee to work, it will amount to ‘bonded labour’ under the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976.
Therefore, it seems that an employment contract is that form of contract for personal service which the courts recognize as expressing the social relationship of employer and employee, as opposed to the other relationships i.e. commercial or any other kind.
In the case at hand, it can be presumed that it is simply an ‘Offer Letter’ as the terms and conditions of service have not been specified. It cannot be termed as ‘Employment Agreement’. It is also presumed that the Employer has not yet opened all the ‘terms and conditions of employment’ to the employee in this ‘Offer Letter’ as the person who seeks this clarification has not given any such description.
Hope I have been able to clarify my view point.
Best wishes and regards.
From India, Chandigarh
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Although I am not a practicing lawyer, yet I feel that the legal position would be somewhat like this:-
If you ever witnessed a sale-purchase transaction of a property, like the example you have quoted, you may be knowing that simultaneously the parties also enter into an ‘Agreement to Sell’ and the purchaser also makes part payment (consideration) of the agreed amount to the seller. In such agreements the total consideration price (total cost) is written which the purchaser would pay to the seller. And usually it is also agreed between the parties that the seller will sell to the purchaser on the agreed amount but in case he fails to do so, he will return double the amount (consideration) which has been advanced to him, and also, if the purchaser fails to pay the balance amount within the stipulated time, his partial payment made would be forfeited by the seller.
Now under this sale-purchase agreement the following situations may emerge:-
(1) if the seller revokes agreement or fails to appear before Register for transfer of property when the seller marks his presence there along with the balance amount, the seller would be liable to pay double the amount he has already received from the purchaser. And if the seller fails to pay back, the purchaser will file a suit for recovery as per terms of agreement. He will claim this amount under the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
(2) If the seller marks his presence before the Registrar for transfer of property but the purchaser does not appear, or the purchaser revokes agreement, the seller will keep the money advanced to him by the purchaser and the purchaser cannot claim it as per terms of agreement.
(3) If the seller, after receiving the full amount of money (consideration), does not appear before Register for transfer of property, the Purchaser can file a suit for specific performance under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and force him to transfer the property to him.
Hence, in these kind of agreements, the part-payment or full payment is the ‘consideration’. As per law, consideration could even be paltry sums say one penny or one rupee. And also, such kind of agreements can be legally forced to be performed specifically by the erring party through the court of law in India i.e. under the provisions of Specific Relief Act, 1963.
But this is not the situation in the cases of contract of service i.e. contracts between employer and employee. These kind of agreements cannot got enforced through courts in view of section 14(1)(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 according to which a contract, the performance of which involves continuous duty which the court cannot supervise, cannot be enforced.
However, if the employer still forces an employee to work, it will amount to ‘bonded labour’ under the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976.
Therefore, it seems that an employment contract is that form of contract for personal service which the courts recognize as expressing the social relationship of employer and employee, as opposed to the other relationships i.e. commercial or any other kind.
In the case at hand, it can be presumed that it is simply an ‘Offer Letter’ as the terms and conditions of service have not been specified. It cannot be termed as ‘Employment Agreement’. It is also presumed that the Employer has not yet opened all the ‘terms and conditions of employment’ to the employee in this ‘Offer Letter’ as the person who seeks this clarification has not given any such description.
Hope I have been able to clarify my view point.
Best wishes and regards.
From India, Chandigarh
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I am sorry I may differ with dignitaries. Recruitment is primarily based on the necessity of the company. If the company can't afford to provide any new employee recruitment, it can cancel or delay placement in its offer letter. As I mentioned previously, the employee-employer relation comes into force only when the employee reports for duty with an accepted joining report.
Though this case is heard to be a violation of natural justice on one side, the other side is that nothing can be done by the recruited employee if the company fails to absorb them, mostly due to financial setbacks of the company. Even government institutions sometimes do the same. The employee has to wait for their turn if it is a reliable, reputed company.
From India, Nellore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Though this case is heard to be a violation of natural justice on one side, the other side is that nothing can be done by the recruited employee if the company fails to absorb them, mostly due to financial setbacks of the company. Even government institutions sometimes do the same. The employee has to wait for their turn if it is a reliable, reputed company.
From India, Nellore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.
Five Ways To... Politely Reject a Job Offer.pdf
Job Offer - Format 2017.docx